Drawing from a variety of diverse philosophical wells, the Akademeian school of thought—or Akademeianism, to ensure that we have all the variations covered here—is concerned with a balance between speculative and pragmatic approaches to the Law of Thelema. The Akademeian focus is on the theoretical and practical disciplines in exploration of the Law with an eye for real world application of the Law.

I was amused by the preacher’s eulogy given that he quoted my aunt directly in calling my mother “Little Hitler” when they were growing up and for much of her adult life due to her particular view of the world as black and white with little to no gray. That would be a fair assessment of her, I think. I might not have put it in such glowing terms, but the sentiment was there and accurate enough to be true. While it would give rise to some all of our conflicts, it was also that part of her that gave her strength to live with her disease and, at the same time, rescue a helpless three year old from a psychotic, murderous mother and raise him to be a willful, intelligent, and incredibly wonderful teenager.

I did not say anywhere that Thelema originated with Crowley. I said that you cannot take Crowley out of Thelema anymore than you can take Moses out of Judaism. I agree these various spiritual lines are all connected, but no more so than Judaism to Christianity and with about the same concern by the average Christian. They can acknowledge it, but they have little depth of understanding of those connections outside some superficial elements they get on Sunday morning. For the most part, the “meat” of those connections are enjoyed mainly by scholars. My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach—either the general “mass” approach or the more specific “academic” approach. The Law is for all. How deeply one wants to dig into the specifics of the Law is up to each individual or each group or each sect or each school of thought. But that does not diminish the Law itself being applicable and necessary for all.

It is nifty to suggest that every man and every woman is a star, independent, and shinny. But it is another matter to realize that all those stars exist within a universe that is even larger still. When we can come to understand Thelema as a culture full of diversity rather than merely a series of ideological battles then we might actually survive.

My mother is dead.

Unto her from whose eyes the veil of life hath fallen may there be granted the accomplishment of her true Will; whether she will absorption in the Infinite, or to be united with her chosen and preferred, or to be in contemplation, or to be at peace, or to achieve the labour and heroism of incarnation on this planet or another, or in any Star, or aught else, unto her may there be granted the accomplishment of her will; yea, the accomplishment of her will.

If we wanted to be arbitrarily dismissive we could connect much of Crowley’s thought to the faddish nature of his own times. There are certainly enough detractors who already dismiss much of Crowley’s thought with a wave of early twentieth century naiveté and give it no more thought. Crowley was more than merely a product of his times, however, or a reflection of a specific zeitgeist of Victorian occultism. These views may be strictly true, of course, but they miss an important aspect of Crowley as part of the change occurring within the larger religious and spiritual evolutionary currents.

While understanding that ‘rights’ predicate a social environment and interaction between more than merely an individual with himself in the mirror, technically, there is only one inherent right: that is, the right to life. If one denies this inherent right, then all else is in moot and conversation ends, civilization itself ends or at the very least devolves into a puddle of slime. Should one recognize this inherent right, however, then all else is, rationally speaking, merely a consequence or a corollary of that single premise. But this right (like any other right) is merely the freedom to action—that is, in thelemic terms, thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay.

While it might be said Thelema is the bastard spawn of Christianity, it could more properly be said that it is the legitimate grandchild of Judaism: that is to say, the gene pool from which Thelema can claim inheritance finds it harbors a shallow end of Christian doctrinal and religious motifs while having a deep end of Judaic cultural and mystical influences. The Jews don’t have holidays as much as they have remembrances. Yes, without a doubt, they are called holidays, but they actually are much more than mere pauses in the flow of everyday life. They are a part of everyday life, year after year. It is, in part, through these cycles of practice that the Jews find the evidence of their faith. It is not the faith itself, but the action by which the faith makes itself known. It is a rare Jew indeed who can say, “I believe in G-d” and yet not observe at least the major holidays of the Jewish faith. And yet, we as Thelemites, hold no meaning—or even rational judgment—toward those who would suggest by their behavior that Thelema is entirely a passive philosophy and religion. But by the contents of our very Holy Books it is abundantly clear that Thelema is entirely an active philosophy and religion.

I would like boldly to suggest that occultism, and most specifically Thelema, does not have enough Dungeons & Dragons in it. By this I mean the sense of creativity, of passion, of being intimately involved in the environment of Thelema is missing from the majority of approaches. While people sit around talking about the evils of this Order or that fraternity, and even most of the “deep” conversations in some forums are really little more than nonsense disguised as reason, there is a lack of creativity—true creativity that produces evidence of having dipped itself in the well of the gods and brought forth the water of life. In paraphrasing a friend, probably badly, magic and spirituality is actually about creativity over reason. While I would disagree that these are mutually exclusive, the point is that there is a missing element within the thelemic current that hinges on that creativity. There is a solid counter-movement that has as its foundation, paradoxically, no foundation at all. It is most represented by a hodge-podge of neo-platonic mysticism combined with a nihilistic post-modernism to forge, at best, this tenuous alliance of separate centers of the universe, all unhappy and purposeless, but going forward to some unknown meaning that has always existed but has no explanation or language outside the center of that universe that is undefinable by mere mortals. In short, they seem to appreciate the sounds of their own voice but deny that their voice has any meaning at all. My response is simple: then why talk at all?

All knowledge is not based on relation, but on identity. Identity subsumes relation, of course. But it is not merely the relation that defines an object. A dog cannot be a cat at the same time. That dog cannot be red and green at the same time. That dog cannot freeze through ice conditions and burn by fire conditions at the same time. While there is a certainly amount of relationship between these extremes—by the fact that they are opposites in relation to each other—it is not the relation that defines these conditions, states, or objects but their own identity that defines them. This is all aside the fact that no science, philosophy, or religion will ever provide circumstances or definitions of “absolute certainty.” In fact, such absolute certainty isn’t even part of the scientific process. However, this does not remove the ability to be certain of some fact within the bounds of available information. If one can never change certain perceptions based on new information or experience, then science, in and of itself, breaks down and progress of human evolution grinds to a halt.

While morality is based within ethics, ethics has no other additional relation to morality. Ethics are unavoidable in any point-event where two or more individuals are in contact. But Nietzschean morality has no place within thelemic philosophy, specifically thelemic ethics. The Will-to-Power and other fallacious notions (his ‘lone wolf’ philosophy most used by Crowley, especially) are long gone from the primary stage of philosophy. Nietzsche, in effect, replaced the power of faith with the power of force; and given that the power of force is nearly always influenced by the power of faith, in effect, Nietzsche surrendered humanity to a double dose of little more than an even more deadly faith in the bloody skin of wolves.

I just love relativists. Especially as a replacement for the between course sorbet.

There are six distinctive features about what I believe Systematic Thelema is and how it should be taught.

1. A Clear Hierological Basis for Doctrines. I believe that teachings about Thelema should be explicitly based on the texts of Thelema. Because of the particular and individual providence of the Holy Books, I believe those words have authority that should not be taken lightly.

2. Clarity in the Explanation of Doctrines. I believe that whatever powers reveled the Book of the Law and inspired the rest of the current thelemic canon had no intention of causing confusion and frustration. This is not to suggest that the codes and the qaballistic elements of the text are either unintentional or unnecessary for the understanding of a further aspects to the text. However, thelemic doctrine is not determined by such elements though they can be supported and confirmed by them.

3. Application to Life. I believe that Thelema was intended to studied as a way of life. All of the internal evidence within the Holy Books points to a means of living, worshiping, and becoming more than something left on a shelf to gather dust.

4. Focus on the Thelemic World. I believe that a true system of Thelema can only be constructed from within what we might call a “conservative” hierological tradition—that is, by those who certify the truthfulness of the Holy Books. Conservative here is not to be meant in any kind of political or moral sense, but in an academic or religious sense of both understanding and skepticism of arbitrary change. I do not believe that so-called “liberal” approaches to Thelema will accomplish anything at all that has not already or could be not accomplished through a conservative approach. It is my belief that there is the possibility for a rich and meaningful dialogue of different viewpoints and insights into the Holy Books.

5. Hope for Progress in Doctrinal Unity in the Community. I believe that there is still much hope for the thelemic community to attain deeper doctrinal understanding, and to overcome barriers, even those that have already begun to creep into place over the last half century. In the course of examining thelemic doctrines with a fresh and systematic perspective, there is more that can come through reason and agreement than from hostility, conflict, and opposition. It has long been a personal belief that when those who are serious about the study of Thelema as it applies to life come to reason together that more would be found in common than not. It must be stressed here that doctrinal unity in no way infringes upon individual application.

6. A Sense of the Urgent Need for Greater Doctrinal Understanding in the Whole Body of Nuit. I believe there is an urgent need in the whole community—that which we call the Body of Nuit—for a much greater and deeper understanding of thelemic doctrine. It is not merely a few initiates here and there or those in this Order or that fraternity; though these certainly need to understand Thelema in greater depth. It is all Thelemites. One day we may actually have temples and sanctuaries full of Thelemites that can study, apply, and live the doctrinal teachings of the Holy Books as quickly and easily as they can discuss their children’s sports teams or the latest television series. It is not that Thelemites lack the ability to understand doctrine; it is that there has been no accessible form of thelemic doctrine. Once that happens, I believe that many Thelemites will find that understanding and living the doctrines of Light, Life, Love, and Liberty is one of the greatest joys.

I have an interesting observation about kids—generally from about young teens through mid-20s (i.e., the tumultuous years of early life)—that is a bit out of character for me, I think, but is all about the direct relationship between the appearance of stability, happiness, and self-esteem and the amount of personal dedication they hold toward their particular religious paradigm.